The latest METOP 2 IASI imagery for July 31, 2013 12-24 hrs reveals a significant increase in upper tropospheric methane over North America.

Contributing factors are record high temps, fires, perhaps permafrost methane release, and also the lowering of OH in the atmosphere due to the Siberian and North American fires.

Attached is the 586 mb image from 07-31-13 pm to give an example of what is observed. the highest methane readings at that layer were 2241 ppb.

The best way to get the full impact is by use of methanetracker.org. Remember to use Google Chrome for access.

Could these high levels of methane be related to the interaction of the Polar and Ferrel cells? Could this interaction be an effective transfer of methane released from the permafrost to the mid-latitudes?

In my opinion the winds certainly play an important factor in the location of the observed methane concentrations; but the methane source is the fundamental factor and it is very important to remember that the recently observed methane emissions from the Arctic Ocean (while of deep concern) is probably not the source of most of what you see in the images that A4R posted. For example the images show significant amounts of methane directly over the Southern Ocean, that (in my opinion) could only have come from the decomposition of marine methane hydrates in the Southern Ocean that are then blown circumferentially around the Southern Ocean with some methane bleeding off towards the north and some towards the south (where the image shows them concentrating over Antarctica). However, probably the most important sources regarding your question are: (a) the degradation of the NH permafrost beneath lakes; (b) methane emissions from anthropogenic sources; and (c) possible methane emissions associated with the recent "greening" of the deserts (possibly emitted by ground bacteria). These are just my opinions, but the risks represented by these methane measurement are all too real.Best,ASLR

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

Am I reading that last map, the 586 mb one, right? Is the highest level really about 2350? Have you seen readings that high a lot at that elevation?

« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 02:03:38 PM by wili »

Logged

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

The latest METOP 2 IASI imagery for July 31, 2013 12-24 hrs reveals a significant increase in upper tropospheric methane over North America.

Contributing factors are record high temps, fires, perhaps permafrost methane release, and also the lowering of OH in the atmosphere due to the Siberian and North American fires.

Attached is the 586 mb image from 07-31-13 pm to give an example of what is observed. the highest methane readings at that layer were 2241 ppb.

The best way to get the full impact is by use of methanetracker.org. Remember to use Google Chrome for access.

Let us also acknowledge the contribution to methane levels over North America (and the entire northern hemisphere) from natural gas production. Check the following link from climate progress which reports on significant methane emissions from natural gas fields in Utah.

Quote

The measurements show that on one February day in the Uintah Basin, the natural gas field leaked 6 to 12 percent of the methane produced, on average, on February days.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) called the emissions rates “alarmingly high.” While the researchers conducted 12 flights, “they selected just one as their data source for this paper,” ClimateWire reports. Researchers actually measured higher emissions on other flights, but atmospheric conditions during those flights “gave the data more uncertainty.”

From Article Abstract:

Quote

Abstract

[1] Methane (CH4) emissions from natural gas production are not well quantified and have the potential to offset the climate benefits of natural gas over other fossil fuels. We use atmospheric measurements in a mass balance approach to estimate CH4 emissions of 55 ± 15x103 kg hr-1 from a natural gas and oil production field in Uintah County, Utah on one day: February 3, 2012. This emission rate corresponds to 6.2-11.7% (1σ) of average hourly natural gas production in Uintah County in the month of February. This study demonstrates the mass balance technique as a valuable tool for estimating emissions from oil and gas production regions, and illustrates the need for further atmospheric measurements to determine the representativeness of our single-day estimate and to better assess inventories of CH4 emissions.

The US produces over 25 trillion cu ft of natural gas a year. Most of that natural gas is from shale and tight gas formations. Some 14.5 trillion cu ft of the total (which is expected to rise by 100% over the next decade or so). If we were just talking 10% of that amount it would be adding 1.45 trillion cu ft to total emissions. Not inconsequential is it? If losses are approx. 10% for all US production then it is 2.5 trillion cu ft of emissions.

Global natural gas production is approximately 100 trillion cu ft year. 10% of that would give 10 trillion cubic ft year of leakage. Starting to sound ugly.

One of my brother's in law runs a gas field service company and he and I have talked about how hard they try and keep leakage during production as low as possible. I have trouble believing that many of the locations outside the US try any where near as hard as we do to prevent leakage (I am especially thinking Russia here and emissions affecting methane readings in the East). The global leakage level could easily be much higher than in the US. In light of that and the above numbers it sure seems likely that leakage from natural gas production is a significant contributor to global methane emissions.

Logged

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

There are two papers in the last few months on the under-reporting of CH4 release in the US by about 50-75%, which has a significant impact on US reporting to the UN WMO GHG, report. The US increases in CH4 release are substantiated by the AIRS satellite CH4 monitoring.

A4R, Can the high Co2 readings over the great lakes region - Eastern seaboard be somehow explained by the warm pole -cold continents conditions that have predominated for much of the winter season? Have the high Co2 levels you show on your A4R blog originated further north and dropped south with the cold air? I tried commenting on your blog without success.

The dominant wind pattern has been to shove the polar temps and gasses south through the winter. I think it is a factor, but have not studied it completely. We need 3D modeling of CH4 and CO2 atmospheric transport. The closest we get on the web is through use of methanetracker.

This paper uses geospatial analysis and shows that Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana have the highest concentration of methane emissions in the U.S. due to refinery operations. They state that the emissions from these regions alone account for 4.1% of the total CO2equivalent global emissions.

It sure looks like the area is the Hydrate Ridge, and north thru the hydrate field there.

Could low level heating be responsible for this ? Is the movement of methane down from the arctic "capping" the lower atmo from being able to release the methane, and we are getting surface heating from it ?

Because Texas had the same problem after Deepwater Horizon methane emmission

It sure looks like the area is the Hydrate Ridge, and north thru the hydrate field there.

Could low level heating be responsible for this ? Is the movement of methane down from the arctic "capping" the lower atmo from being able to release the methane, and we are getting surface heating from it ?

Because Texas had the same problem after Deepwater Horizon methane emmission

No, Methane might be emitted in the area but it is a well mixed gas and disperses almost immediately. The high levels of concentration seen are still only 2.2 parts per million. So not enough to cause any significant regional heating.

In addition, the release of deep sea hydrates does not travel to the surface, even if there was some disassociation. Studies of the deep water horizon spill showed very little methane made it to the surface and was primarily digested by microbes underwater over the next few years. http://phys.org/news/2014-05-fate-methane-deepwater-horizon.html

Actually, that may have been due to stormy weather, and the depth of the deepwater horizon well.and the leftover oil dispersant

A lady is flying over that area every week looking for oil slicks that harm aquatic mammals, and she is seeing roiling seas of (assumed) methane streams EVERY time she flies over the area.

There is plenty of mixing, and in warm water like the gulf, there is enough heat to allow large blooms of methanotrophs, but in cooler waters, such as off the NW, and up in the arctic, that is a pretty big assumption, countered by the SWERUS team and the Sharakov studies, in every location they have looked.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060954759A Trump administration plan to replace Obama-era methane standards for the oil and gas industry could leave behind a patchwork of state regulations and voluntary goals to rein in emissions from one of the most potent greenhouses gases.But analysts say the hodgepodge of existing efforts likely will fall far short in cutting methane emissions to levels needed to meet climate goals.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060954759A Trump administration plan to replace Obama-era methane standards for the oil and gas industry could leave behind a patchwork of state regulations and voluntary goals to rein in emissions from one of the most potent greenhouses gases.But analysts say the hodgepodge of existing efforts likely will fall far short in cutting methane emissions to levels needed to meet climate goals.